Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

[ChristianPatriot]

As was already mentioned up-thread, if you feel that you personally, as a Christian, shouldn't own a weapon, than you absolutely shouldn't. I don't feel that way, but I believe the Bible is gray in some areas for a reason. Namely that they're not ultimately important in the grand scheme of eternity. The important things, God (Christ) was explicitly clear on.

 

[Caleb]

My dad posted this article on Facebook and I posted this comment on his post:

Personally, I have a license and I do carry from time to time(used to carry all the time, however a full size pistol can get tiresome after a while).

I'm of the opinion that a responsible person will take steps to protect themselves and their children, as my children cannot defend themselves. To me, a gun isn't to give me confidence or build my esteem, nor to seek revenge and violence. I believe that taking care of what I'm given is part of being stewards.

I know the Bible say to turn to the other cheek, but to roll over and leave my kids, wife, and I defenseless isn't what Jesus would want us to do.

Walk softly and carry a big stick...

 

[ajeandy]

I didn't read it, because I got what I needed from the title. Which should read, should anyone be encouraged to arm themselves? The answer is a simple yes. If you value your life and that of your family, then yes. If you'd prefer to leave your life in the hands of "fate," then that's your choice to make.

Edit: after thinking about the title a second time, I realized that "encouraged" could be interpreted several ways...

If encouraged, referring to, yes it's ok to defend your life and your family, then I'm ok with that...

If encouraged, referring to pressured in the sense of you need or have to, then I'm not ok with that.

Regardless of religion if someone wants to defend themselves and their family they have that right, but they shouldn't be pressured into owning a firearm they may not be comfortable using.

 

[tyrajam]

Fantastic article Rambone! I think it's odd that many of these people are against self defense, but are fine with their taxes being used to hire the police and military to take up arms to defend them. Paying agents of the state to carry a gun for you doesn't make you a pacifist, it makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Alamo]

Rambone, you (and others) might find of interest what this Texas pastor, posting as koine2002, has to say: Jan 1st, 2016 Open Carry Reports. - Page 14 - TexasCHLforum.com

He mentions John Piper's essay, and how he thinks Piper missed the mark. He doesn't go into a lot of detail, because he is actually addressing the decision of a church to allow open carry or not, now that OC is legal in Texas, but I think brings up another way to address the religious aspect.

 

[Gluemanz28]

After taking time to Skim-read Mr Pipers article and Rambones fully I have a new thought. I have always thought about asking Peter when I get to Heaven if he was aiming for the ear or if he was trying to split the dudes skull open and he moved his head in time, but I just had another revelation.

I was always under the impression that Jesus had compassion on the guard and put his ear back on the side of his head, but was the real reason so that Peter wouldn't be killed for striking the guard? They couldn't have any judgement against him if the guards ear was intact.

I'm gonna ask Jesus that too.

 

[rambone]

After taking time to Skim-read Mr Pipers article and Rambones fully I have a new thought. I have always thought about asking Peter when I get to Heaven if he was aiming for the ear or if he was trying to split the dudes skull open and he moved his head in time, but I just had another revelation.

I was always under the impression that Jesus had compassion on the guard and put his ear back on the side of his head, but was the real reason so that Peter wouldn't be killed for striking the guard? They couldn't have any judgement against him if the guards ear was intact.

I'm gonna ask Jesus that too.

It would be hard for me to imagine Peter was intentionally trying to remove an ear. Why...what would that accomplish? Peter was going for the head and the guy probably ducked.

So yes, I agree that Jesus's miracle (and warning) was to spare Peter from giving his life because of a vain outburst.

 

[rvb]

After taking time to Skim-read Mr Pipers article and Rambones fully I have a new thought. I have always thought about asking Peter when I get to Heaven if he was aiming for the ear or if he was trying to split the dudes skull open and he moved his head in time, but I just had another revelation.

I was always under the impression that Jesus had compassion on the guard and put his ear back on the side of his head, but was the real reason so that Peter wouldn't be killed for striking the guard? They couldn't have any judgement against him if the guards ear was intact.

I'm gonna ask Jesus that too.

I believe Peter was looking to spit his melon open and failed, only getting the ear.
At the last supper, Jesus recognized life for his followers would become hard after he left them, and commanded they buy swords. Previously he had sent them into the world without money, food, etc. "But now..." his directions to them changed. Peter had just been told he would deny Christ 3 times despite his declaration he would stick by Christ till prison or death; and he was probably feeling a need to prove his resolve. "Those who live by the sword die by the sword" is, to me, a warning about headstrongness and foolishness in rushing into action, or living a life of violence...

Christ put the high priest's servant's ear back in place because he didn't want to be defended or freed or fought for at that time. Being arrested and crucified WAS the plan. The intended trial was to be against the king of kings, not an accomplice to attempted murder. Christ was always working towards the one end goal.

-rvb

 

[T.Lex]

Good response, rambone. Well, I wasn't that interested in the original, so I didn't read it, but I can only imagine that you fully addressed the issues he presented.

On the issue of "live by the sword, die by the sword" - as someone who carries daily, I'm ok with it. I am not a violent guy. I don't "live by the gun." To me, that has a connotation of someone who uses a sword/gun to acquire what they need to live. More literally, to live by what the sword/gun gets. The people that do that, IMHO, are more likely to meet their end by the same means they live.

For a Christian carrier, someone who considers the firearm a tool for self defense, I don't think the admonition is relevant. Or at least, not any more relevant than the admonition "do not covet" to someone who doesn't covet. Kinda like the warning label to turn off the car when pumping gas - always a good idea, but not really something I was contemplating.

The part that I've occasionally wrestled with is the Trust God thing. I pray for protection from evil, so why would I need more than God's protection? Generally, I come down on the side that God also expects me to take reasonable measures to protect myself and my family. There are times (for good reasons and bad) that I am unarmed. On those occasions, I absolutely trust that God's will be done. I also recognize that just because I carry, it doesn't mean I will automatically be able to defend myself. So, ultimately, I'm still trusting God.

I don't begrudge anyone's decision to carry/own a firearm. It is a matter of conscience upon which reasonable people can (politely) disagree.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Great replies Rambone and RVB, but I'm still not sold on him trying to split the ole boys head. I believe that Peter was a skilled marksman (he did a lot of dry fire in the off season) and could pretty much hit the skull if that was his intentions, even a moving target.

If he was swinging full throttle to take the skull in half wouldn't it be fair to say that the continued downward motion of the sword would have also continued into the shoulder? If it was actually an ear attempt it would have been a snap of the wrist type of action and stopping the downward motion kinds of like a check swing in baseball.

Just an observation and food for thought.

 

[T.Lex]

On the issue of Malchus' ear, IIRC only 1 gospel says Jesus healed it, yet all of them describe the smiting.

I generally agree that this seems to be more an act of anger, for which Jesus was disappointed. But, he also quickly turns to the priests "arresting him" and rebukes them for bringing weapons to arrest a non-violent guy. To me, part of the greater message is to not escalate things that do not need to be escalated.

Jesus: first advocate for the force continuum.

 

[rvb]

The part that I've occasionally wrestled with is the Trust God thing. I pray for protection from evil, so why would I need more than God's protection? Generally, I come down on the side that God also expects me to take reasonable measures to protect myself and my family. There are times (for good reasons and bad) that I am unarmed. On those occasions, I absolutely trust that God's will be done. I also recognize that just because I carry, it doesn't mean I will automatically be able to defend myself. So, ultimately, I'm still trusting God.

Good post. I sometimes wrestle with the part I quoted also, but I feel I still place trust in God... trust he will give me the levelheadedness and skills needed, that whatever is going to happen is part of his plan (even if that means my time is up), that he'll ensure truth is revealed in court, etc. But there is, IMO, a line that is crossed where putting trust in God becomes putting God to the test. I'm reminded of the story of the person who dies refusing to leave his home during a flood, putting his trust in God. When he meets God he asks why God didn't save him, and God says, I gave you a vehicle with which to drive away, then I sent a neighbor with a boat, and finally I sent a CG helo, but you turned them all away!

-rvb

 

[HoughMade]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rambone again

...and so it goes.

I could not see a point I disagree with.

It is extremely important for Christians to think about and test their beliefs against Scripture. What we have always believed may not be right. What John Piper has done for the thinking Christian is cause us to examine our own beliefs about self-defense and to determine if they accord with Scripture. That is a very good thing.

 

[chipbennett]

I will go back and read your (clearly very thorough) response when I have time to do it justice. I just wanted to point out my quick/initial thoughts, looking at the linked column (and I know that you tackle some of these points as well):

Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.

It isn't a good sign when the author begins his treatise with an obvious straw man. There is a world of difference between, "I have the means to defend myself" and "I have the power to kill you".

[h=2]The apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and instead to return good for evil.[/h]

Self-defense is not a matter of vengeance, period. Therefore, his discussion of the rightful arbiter of justice is moot.

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

Self-defense is not an act of evil. Defending innocent life is the height of honor. And "so far as it depends on you" implies that it will not, in fact, always depend on you.

[h=2]The apostle Peter teaches us that Christians will often find themselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.[/h]

This is a complete non-sequitur. Paul is talking about persecution for Christian faith, not self-defense against mundane, violent criminals.

[h=2]Jesus promised that violent hostility will come; and the whole tenor of his counsel was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not with armed defense.[/h]

Ditto. We are talking about self-defense against violent criminals, not persecution for our faith.

[h=2]Jesus set the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian cause with the sword.[/h]

So: we shouldn't go on a Jihad to spread Christianity? Got it.

What does that have to do with self-defense against violent criminals?

[h=2]Jesus strikes the note that the dominant (not the only) way Christians will show the supreme value of our treasure in heaven is by being so freed from the love of this world and so satisfied with the hope of glory that we are able to love our enemies and not return evil for evil, even as we expect to be wronged in this world.[/h]

Once again: self-defense is not an act of evil. (Does this treatise ever actually get to the biblical stance on self-defense, or does it consist entirely of this sort of sophistry?)

[h=2]The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God.[/h]

Again with conflating persecution with self-defense against violent criminals?

[h=2]When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.[/h]

He's really going all-in on the stance that Christians should endure persecution. I get it. I agree with it.

Now maybe, a word on self-defense?

[h=2]A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”[/h]My answer is sevenfold.

Spoiler: his answer boils down to an implied "no". Because spreading the faith requires allowing a raping murderer to rape and murder my wife in front of me - and possibly in front of our children.

[h=2]Even though the Lord ordains for us to use ordinary means of providing for life (work to earn; plant and harvest; take food, drink, sleep, and medicine; save for future needs; provide governments with police and military forces for society), nevertheless, the unique calling of the church is to live in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about our hope (1 Peter 3:15), not about the ingenuity of our armed defenses.[/h]

I am reminded of a story.

There may be a biblical basis against the use of deadly force in self-defense, but this piece isn't it.

 

[rvb]

But there is, IMO, a line that is crossed where putting trust in God becomes putting God to the test. I'm reminded of the story of the person who dies refusing to leave his home during a flood, putting his trust in God. When he meets God he asks why God didn't save him, and God says, I gave you a vehicle with which to drive away, then I sent a neighbor with a boat, and finally I sent a CG helo, but you turned them all away!

-rvb

I am reminded of a story.

thanks, that's what I was referring to!

-rvb

 

[trucker777]

There was a movie that came out awhile back, Machine Gun Preacher I think it was called. It was based on a true story, Interesting illustration.

So, In a nutshell....


I have noticed that the "sword" verse often quoted during these discussions found in Rev. 13:10 , varies in meaning depending on the translation. I believe it to mean what it says in the KJV, and Aramaic translation in plain english.
So this verse speaks literally of murderers who kill with swords, and "those in authority" spoken of in Romans 13:4, who are God's ministers and do not bear the sword in vain, executing Gods judgement in the earth fulfilling the civil law in Leviticus 24:17.

 

[steveh_131]

It isn't a good sign when the author begins his treatise with an obvious straw man. There is a world of difference between, "I have the means to defend myself" and "I have the power to kill you".

Self-defense is not a matter of vengeance, period. Therefore, his discussion of the rightful arbiter of justice is moot.

Self-defense is not an act of evil. Defending innocent life is the height of honor. And "so far as it depends on you" implies that it will not, in fact, always depend on you.

He leads the article with this:

My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.

The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.

I agree with him that the idea of 'let's teach them a lesson' does sound a lot like vengeance to me. Even if what they are doing is technically self defense, if they enter into it with a vengeful attitude then the technicalities don't matter. God is all about the heart.

 

[HoughMade]

...and there it is again:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to steveh_131 again.

The rest of you people better start saying stuff I want to rep so I can start repping rambone and Steve again.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

...and there it is again:


The rest of you people better start saying stuff I want to rep so I can start repping rambone and Steve again.

I say stuff all the time. You mean to tell me none of my pearls of wisdom are rep worthy?!?!?

 

[trucker777]

He leads the article with this:



I agree with him that the idea of 'let's teach them a lesson' does sound a lot like vengeance to me. Even if what they are doing is technically self defense, if they enter into it with a vengeful attitude then the technicalities don't matter. God is all about the heart.

Having a heart to righteousness, like King David who was a man after God's own heart... Acts 13:22